Lowinger v. Jacques

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lowinger v. Jacques

204 A.D.2d 175, 612 N.Y.S.2d 18

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 175 (Lowinger v. Jacques) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lowinger v. Jacques, 204 A.D.2d 175, 612 N.Y.S.2d 18 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about February 23, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[176]*176We agree with the IAS Court that the amended complaint fails to plead evidentiary facts of malice sufficient to overcome the common interest qualified privilege protecting any defamatory statements defendant may have published to the Committee on Academic Standing, but would add that the offending written statements are also nonactionable because they were merely expressions of opinion (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283, 289), and that many of the offending oral statements are also nonactionable because, while offensive, they amounted to nothing more than mere insult, not to be taken literally and not deemed injurious to reputation (DePuy v St. John Fisher Coll., 129 AD2d 972). Conczur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about February 23, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[176]*176We agree with the IAS Court that the amended complaint fails to plead evidentiary facts of malice sufficient to overcome the common interest qualified privilege protecting any defamatory statements defendant may have published to the Committee on Academic Standing, but would add that the offending written statements are also nonactionable because they were merely expressions of opinion (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283, 289), and that many of the offending oral statements are also nonactionable because, while offensive, they amounted to nothing more than mere insult, not to be taken literally and not deemed injurious to reputation (DePuy v St. John Fisher Coll., 129 AD2d 972). Conczur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 175, 612 N.Y.S.2d 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowinger-v-jacques-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack